taliban vs 105mm HE

[greyrider]

taliban vs 105mm HE

http://shock.military.com/Shock/vide...=165885&page=1

finally, i was able to find a vid of a 105mm howitzer, loading and shooting.
now, how many seconds does it take to load a 5 inch gun people?
what was that rfb and rub? how many?
looks like the devs got it right, and rub didnt.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

What's the point of this thread?

[piersyf]

Be careful comparing artillery systems. Even something as minor as the direction a breach block opens can effect firing rates. FYI, the difference in projectile weight for 105mm to 127mm is almost double (depending on ammo type). Second, the std crew for a 105mm is about 5 guys, 2 of which are dedicated ammo handlers. While you can get that many involved on a sub, I don't think it was all that common to do so. Third, the arty guys weren't standing on a rolling deck. Finally, the burst rate for a 105 is as high as 7 or 8 rounds per minute, but the sustained rate is much lower. I'm ex artillery, and I know which system would be the easier to work. The 5 inch on an exposed, rolling deck would be a bitch. If you find a vid of a 5" gun shooting sustained rates from the deck of a sub you may have a stronger argument

P

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by piersyf

Second, the std crew for a 105mm is about 5 guys, 2 of which are dedicated ammo handlers. While you can get that many involved on a sub, I don't think it was all that common to do so.

The ammunition for the deck gun was in either ammunition lockers near the gun and in the torpedo rooms (depending on how many torpedoes you wanted to trade for gun ammunition). To get the ammunition from the torpedo room to the deck gun required a chain of men passing the shells.

Then, you have the gun crew proper. If you take a look at http://www.valoratsea.com/ which is a website that deals with the submarine war in the pacific, you can look up the gun stats. I will check in my books as well, as it's extremely dangerous to rely on only one source! But, I don't have access to them right now. Valor at Sea says that the 5"/25 deck gun had a crew of at least eight. Link is here: http://www.valoratsea.com/538.htm. Extract is:

While the submarine was primarily a torpedo platform, there were occasions when alternate weapons were necessary. Rapid submergence with the approach of an enemy aircraft was the best defense against an aerial attack, but when a quick dive was unable to be made, anti-aircraft guns were needed. In addition, attacks against smaller enemy vessels such as sampans or barges was also generally carried out with a sub's deck guns. The largest weapon carried aboard a US submarine was the 5 inch 25 caliber (MK40) cannon. Housed on a moveable mount, submarines located these weapons abaft of the cigarette deck.

This weapon was as efficient in laying down a barrage of anti-aircraft fire as it was in delivering salvos during shore or vessel bombardments. Semi-automatic and rapid firing, it allowed the crew to fire an average of 10 to 15 rounds per minute. This cannon was capable of sending a 54 pound projectile 18,000 yards and possessed a maximum aerial range of six miles.

GUN CREW

Pointer

Trainer
Sight-setter
Gun Captain
Fuse-setter
Hot Shellman
Loaders

Note on the above - sometimes two 5/25" guns were mounted on a submarine, one forward and one aft, although that was rare and only in the last year of the war. Even the 20mm gun had a crew of three or four and the single 40mm gun had a crew of four.

I'll check with my references when I get home too and post if they are different.


Edit: Greyrider, if you don't like the gun fire rate, how about changing it yourself with S3D? There should be some info on how to do it in the mods forum.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by greyrider

taliban vs 105mm HE

http://shock.military.com/Shock/vide...=165885&page=1

finally, i was able to find a vid of a 105mm howitzer, loading and shooting.
now, how many seconds does it take to load a 5 inch gun people?
what was that rfb and rub? how many?
looks like the devs got it right, and rub didnt.

Yes, I noticed the undulating waves and swells under their howitzer. They look very stable considering all the waves and swells. I also noticed the had to re-aim the weapon as the deck of their submarine that looks strangly like solid ground was moving up and down. Interesting. :hmm:

Come on guy, how does this simulate how it is on a moving submarine firing at another moving vessel.

[Nisgeis]

I can't find any other sources of info that state the firing rates of 5"/25 guns, but the gun crew number seems to match. The only reference to firing rates in combat conditions I was able to find was one account against a fast moving craft that was causing the fire control party tracking problems. The rate of fire for that encounter was 71 shells from two 5"/25 guns in 39 mins, so that's less than one a minute. The firing rate mentioned on the Valor at Sea, if it's the manufacturers figure, is likely to be the test firing rate, with all things perfect on a stable platform, firing at a stationary target (or no target at all). You'd have to factor in the barrel overheating into the mix as well at that rate. If I happen to read any more patrol reports, I'll keep an eye out for timings of gun actions and rounds expended. But for the time being, and after some research, the RFB rates seem quite generous.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Yes, I noticed the undulating waves and swells under their howitzer. They look very stable considering all the waves and swells. I also noticed the had to re-aim the weapon as the deck of their submarine that looks strangly like solid ground was moving up and down. Interesting. :hmm:

Come on guy, how does this simulate how it is on a moving submarine firing at another moving vessel.

What I did not notice was the scuttle 12 feet away from the non business end of the gun.

Also it was just an arty piece not designed to be DP (fast loading for AA purposes)

[Trex]

Just one comment on the clip, as an aside from the conversation. I suspect the gunners are so elated because it is rare for land artillery to fire an operational fire mission and be able to immediately see the results.

piersyf - A question to you as an ex-gunner. Given the Taliban's fondness for mortars and rockets, I was a little surprised at the lack of a close-in wall of sandbags or something to protect gun and crew. Any thoughts on that?

[kurtz]

I'm talking off the top of my head here, but I believe US and UK ordnance of WWII used seperate Shot/propellant rather than the German (and the 105s) single shell system...maybe that's just the bigger guns though?

[Trex]

Originally Posted by kurtz

I'm talking off the top of my head here, but I believe US and UK ordnance of WWII used seperate Shot/propellant rather than the German (and the 105s) single shell system...maybe that's just the bigger guns though?

The Germans always seemed to prefer cases, even for very large guns. I've seen some which must be 16" or better.

In current useage, the 105mm is semi-fixed, meaning that it has a brass or steel case with a number of charge bags. Depending on range, type of projectile, etc, the gunners take out and discard a given number of bags according to a firing table before the inserting the projectile into the case. The other three standard NATO ones are 155mm, 175mm and 203mm. The 175 is just about history and few use the 203mm either. None of these use a case - the projectile is inserted into the breach first, then charge bags are added. Finally, after the breach block is closed, a small primer is inserted, much like a small arms cartridge, to ignite the propellent.

Prior to NATO standardization, there were a plethora of different guns, from 37mm on up. Some used semi-fixed, some did not. The standard British field gun, the 25-pounder, was semi-fixed, as was the US 105mm howitzer. The 37mm and 57mm antitank guns used fixed ammo - the cartridge came fully assemled.

Hope that is of some help.

[piersyf]

Hi Trex. Can't really comment with any certainty regarding protection for the gun and crew, but will try to give an overview from my perspective...

we're looking at US troops, and I'm not an American. I served in the RAA (that's Australian artillery). Doctrine is different, but not all that different. If I make an error of judgement that is one potential source of error.

First off, you'd need to know why they were there, and how long they intended staying, and what they thought the threat level was. If you want to entice combat (make them attack you) you set up in a spot that is very inconvenient for the enemy. The Australian deployment at Nui Dat in Vietnam was a deliberate choice (set up on a supply route then tell everyone that anyone seen after dark will be shot without question) to force the VC to act. In that case the arty was dug in with close cover. When the NVA started moving south for Tet they had to pass near the Marine base at Khe Sahn, so the Marines were re-inforced and toughed it out against significant odds (but gave 3 NVA Divisions a bloody nose in the process). They were also dug in, as the NVA had 130mm artillery pieces and rocket artillery.

In the case of the Taliban, they do not have the capacity to focus large arty concentrations. Also, the US probably doesn't want to seem 'rooted to the spot' andprefers to maintain mobility. Finally, they may not want to give the impression that they have a 'defensive' mentality. Realistically, mortars and rockets are not accurate, and while they can throw fragments a long way and make a loud bang, it is better with low numbers of incoming rounds to be in the open (and wear flack jackets... look for them on the crew) so the blast is dispersed rather than risk focussing the energy of a lucky hit.

Like I said, these are all 'spit ball' ideas because I have absolutely no idea of the specific circumstances around the deployment of those guys at the time of the video, but hopefully have been able to give an idea of some of the considerations that may have been in play.

P

[Happy Times]

In my experience mortars are very accurate. More so than artillery if you want to hit a "point-target", i dont know the english term. In a mountain enviroment, attacking firebases, mortars would be very handy. With high rate of fire, 15-20 rounds a minute, and accuracy you could suppress that compound very effectively. Luckily the Taleban training is probably not cut out for this.

[piersyf]

Hey Trex. Yeah, no argument about blast being local, but a genade in a pit is worse than a grenade in the open. Arty's biggest threat in a conventional fight is counter battery and air. In both cases digging in is counter productive. In the first case you need to move as soon as you shoot, and the old Soviet concept of moving to an alternate prepared position has been shown not to work, not least because the position can be seen and marked, so you get pounded all the way between 2 known locations and once you get there. As for air, it is a bit easier to hide a gun than the pit as well. Western armies have largely moved as far away from prepared positions as they can except where they are a deliberate blocking force or being dangled as bait.
Another way of looking at it is somewhat fatalistic; the dispersion for an average mortar shooting from around 3k is about 20 to 25m. A round going off in the clear space would tell everyone they are under attack, so they wouldn't just stand there, they'd do whatever they were told to do in that case. The frag radius might be large (50m +) but the space between fragments increases over distance. The odds of being killed or even injured are not all that high, especially with the flack gear and helmets. Look at the casualty figures for rocket and mortar attacks and you'll see a pattern of a small number of rounds and a handful of injured, maybe a death except for the 'lucky' shots. The risk is there, but not really as high as many people think. To give a hard figure, during the opening bombardment for operation veritable (end of ww2) the brits were putting 6 TONS of ammo onto every known command post, mortar and gun position(which had varying levels of protection) over a 2 1/2 hour period. People running in the open you can kill, but just simply lying down and not moving increases your chance of survival 10 fold.

[Trex]

Originally Posted by piersyf

Hey Trex. Yeah, no argument about blast being local, but a genade in a pit is worse than a grenade in the open. Arty's biggest threat in a conventional fight is counter battery and air. In both cases digging in is counter productive. In the first case you need to move as soon as you shoot, and the old Soviet concept of moving to an alternate prepared position has been shown not to work, not least because the position can be seen and marked, so you get pounded all the way between 2 known locations and once you get there. As for air, it is a bit easier to hide a gun than the pit as well. Western armies have largely moved as far away from prepared positions as they can except where they are a deliberate blocking force or being dangled as bait.

Good argument. I have heard it before and, in many situations, I agree with it.

There is however little threat in Afghanistan (to us anyway) from either air or CB.

I think the 'grenade in a pit vs grenade in the open' concept is generally greatly overstated. Regardless if you are at the bottom of a mine or on top of a mountain or even floating in mid-air, if you are within the grenade's lethal radius, you are dead, period, full-stop. The only way a barrier will can (not necessarily will, but potentially may) cause more problems is WRT blast, and that is within a very short distance. (Indeed, with the exception of low-frag munitions like FAE, if you are within the lethal radius for blast, you are almost always within the lethal radius for frag). In short, the main danger, the main casualty-causer, comes from fragmentation and barriers provide a positive benefit there.

While moving around from AMA to AMA is good protection in most circumstances, looking at the video, I get the distinct impression that these guys are firing from an established base of some sort. Note the large tents. Also, somebody has had time to fill and place a bunch of Hesco-Bastion (or equivalent).

Fatalism is great and my hat's off to the King of Battle, but I am a professional pessimist. Like I said, Chicken Little only has to be right once. If there is any way I can up the chances of sending one more of our troops home with a full set of body parts and no extra navels, I'm all for it.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Trex

Good argument. I have heard it before and, in many situations, I agree with it.

There is however little threat in Afghanistan (to us anyway) from either air or CB.

I think the 'grenade in a pit vs grenade in the open' concept is generally greatly overstated. Regardless if you are at the bottom of a mine or on top of a mountain or even floating in mid-air, if you are within the grenade's lethal radius, you are dead, period, full-stop. The only way a barrier will can (not necessarily will, but potentially may) cause more problems is WRT blast, and that is within a very short distance. (Indeed, with the exception of low-frag munitions like FAE, if you are within the lethal radius for blast, you are almost always within the lethal radius for frag). In short, the main danger, the main casualty-causer, comes from fragmentation and barriers provide a positive benefit there.

While moving around from AMA to AMA is good protection in most circumstances, looking at the video, I get the distinct impression that these guys are firing from an established base of some sort. Note the large tents. Also, somebody has had time to fill and place a bunch of Hesco-Bastion (or equivalent).

Fatalism is great and my hat's off to the King of Battle, but I am a professional pessimist. Like I said, Chicken Little only has to be right once. If there is any way I can up the chances of sending one more of our troops home with a full set of body parts and no extra navels, I'm all for it.

These are all good point if we are talking about the sense on attacking a firebase, having fun isnt a reason enough. Of course you would have to have large numbers of troops in the open or unprotected otherwise. 82-81mm would be the largest mortars you could use in that terrain so they are no bunker busters.
Ofcourse if you plan to overrun a base the idea of suppressing gets an meaning.